Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:18 PM
Mon Nov 30
60 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/04/09
08/05/09
08/04/09
08/05/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
While I feel badly for these people, how could you not back up your work? You should really have things backed up twice, and somewhere online doesn't count.
FYI for anyone looking for a great photo-sharing service that definitely backs up their customers' content: www.SmugMug.com
08/04/09
08/05/09
08/05/09
I actually do have a paid Flickr account, and still don't expect them to be storage of my pics.
08/04/09
08/04/09
08/04/09
Expecting Flickr to back up digital copies of all your photos is absurd, since they would effectively have to double their storage capacity to make that happen. They could bump up the account security, but then again, somebody is always going to be able to answer your security question or whatever, if they really, really want to get to your stuff.
So the moral of the story is: back up digital copies of your own photos, and don't have crazy lunatic former girlfriends who will go to great lengths to mess with your life.
08/04/09
08/04/09
And incidentally, even if you have everything backed up offline, it's still a nontrivial, time-consuming task to reupload everything if Flickr were to lose your account. I certainly would never pay for a photo-sharing service that didn't provide better security and backup, regardless of whether I had my own backups and/or any lurking crazy exes.
08/04/09
08/04/09
By the way, you can store an unlimited number of photos on Flickr for free! The kicker is that only the first 100 will be visible in your "photostream." So I don't think Flickr's pricing model constitutes the type of highway robbery you seem to think it is. Not in the least.
08/04/09
Flickr brags about keeping ALL of your photos FOREVER, even if you don't pay for the service.
They are essentially held hostage until you cough up the monthly fee to make them visible.
If you pay the fee however, you agree to a terms of service that says Yahoo can enter your home bludgeon your entire family and you won't hold them responsible.
This is why I prefer Picasa. They give me a certain amount of storage for free that I can use any way I want. If I decided I want more storage, I can pay for it in various increments. There are no hidden files that I can't see but Google employees have access to.
The yahoo deal to me has always seemed a bit of bait and switch. Likewise for their e-mail service that only offers decent spam protection if you pay a fee.
When Google came along it challenged both Yahoo and Microsoft to offer much more generous options for storing data, only in the case of both companies, it came with strings. In this case one of the strings is that Yahoo doesn't give a shit about data integrity.
08/05/09
Anyway, some crazy lunatic ex-girlfriend broke into this dude's account and deleted his photos. Yahoo/Flickr didn't do shit. So I'm not sure where you're coming up with your analogy that makes Yahoo culpable here.
08/04/09
Whew...
08/04/09
02/28/09
FYI, the Times covered the same story here:
[bits.blogs.nytimes.com]
Adorama is one of the two best camera stores in the city, the other being B&H, both of which are owned and run primarily by Hassidic Jews. I don't really know why that particular hassidic detail needed to be in the second graf of this post though, and the fact that it did appear after the group of investors was called "shadowy" in the graf above it, and the sale "fishy" makes it seem a little anti-semitic.
Additionally, you wrote that it's fishy for 8020 Media to be acquired by 8020 Media, but that's an error, at least according to the memo sent out by Fox. It says 8020 Publishing LLC is being bought 8020 Media Inc. So, unless the Fox memo is inaccurate, you got the name of the company wrong in the first sentence of the post.
Lastly, I fail to see what's fishy about the sale. This is a positive development for the magazine, and a pretty remarkable one considering the times we live in, and it's a win for the photography community.
02/28/09
02/28/09
02/28/09
03/02/09
02/28/09
03/02/09
02/27/09
But the new owners can't take advantage of net loss carry forwards.
02/27/09